3 ms·

Agreed. I think the highest leverage at this point is actually in political realms, when it comes to climate change. It's just infuriating that a $100/ton tax

Agreed. I think the highest leverage at this point is actually in political realms, when it comes to climate change. It's just infuriating that a $100/ton tax could fix the problem in a perfectly reasonable manner and government has their head in the sand.

ForHackernews 8y ago
I thought the recent UN report was saying that we'd need more like a $5,000/ton tax at this late stage. Here's a right wing source: https://www.heritage.org/energy-economics/commentary/un-climate-report-merely-blueprint-destroying-the-world-economy https://www.heritage.org/energy-economics/commentary/un-clim... > To accomplish such a feat, the new IPCC report proposes an energy tax of epic proportions. It claims that, to keep warming in check, by 2030 we’ll need to impose a tax of between $135 and $5,500 on every ton of carbon emitted. And that’s just for starters. By the end of the century, the authors say, we’ll have to jack the tax up to as much as $27,000 per ton. The denialists have stalled for so long that it's too late for anything except drastic emergency actions, and then they complain that the drastic actions are too extreme. Personally, I think we're doomed but we owe it to future generations to at least try.
- aurelwu 8y ago
  Those numbers are definitely inflated, even at current stage Direct Air Capture Technology is already at well below 1000 Dollar per metric tonne with an outlook to end up below 100 Dollar per tonne in ~20 years. [0] Not saying that DAC is the ideal approach but I find those numbers you mentioned to be very inplausible. [0] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/cost-plunges-capturing-carbon-dioxide-air https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/cost-plunges-capturi...
  - ForHackernews 8y ago
    I think the idea is that the tax would dis-incentivize emissions, so the cost of capture is irrelevant.
    - ttul 8y ago
      Capture technology becomes automatically profitable if the cost to capture is less than the tax. If my business pays $100/t to emit carbon vs $90/t to capture it, I’ll emit and capture and make a $10/t profit. At $100/t, capture technology would become widespread very very quickly as an arbitrage against the carbon tax. And yes, some emitters might find a more profitable way via reduction in emissions, but since capture is equivalent to reduction, the most profitable option will win out every time. This is the magic of carbon taxes.
  - ttul 8y ago
    Carbon Engineering already captures CO2 for $100/tonne. They published a paper on it https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30225-3 https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30225-3 http://carbonengineering.com/ http://carbonengineering.com/ “Individual DAC plants can be placed in any country and in multiple climates, and can be built to capture one million tons of CO2 per year. At this large scale, our technology will be able to achieve costs of $100-150 USD per ton of CO₂ captured, purified, and compressed to 150 bar.”
  - ttul 8y ago
    I should add: BC’s carbon tax will reach $50/t by 2021, which is half way to viability for Carbon Engineering.

ForHackernews 8y ago

I thought the recent UN report was saying that we'd need more like a $5,000/ton tax at this late stage. Here's a right wing source: https://www.heritage.org/energy-economics/commentary/un-climate-report-merely-blueprint-destroying-the-world-economy https://www.heritage.org/energy-economics/commentary/un-clim... > To accomplish such a feat, the new IPCC report proposes an energy tax of epic proportions. It claims that, to keep warming in check, by 2030 we’ll need to impose a tax of between $135 and $5,500 on every ton of carbon emitted. And that’s just for starters. By the end of the century, the authors say, we’ll have to jack the tax up to as much as $27,000 per ton. The denialists have stalled for so long that it's too late for anything except drastic emergency actions, and then they complain that the drastic actions are too extreme. Personally, I think we're doomed but we owe it to future generations to at least try.

aurelwu 8y ago
Those numbers are definitely inflated, even at current stage Direct Air Capture Technology is already at well below 1000 Dollar per metric tonne with an outlook to end up below 100 Dollar per tonne in ~20 years. [0] Not saying that DAC is the ideal approach but I find those numbers you mentioned to be very inplausible. [0] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/cost-plunges-capturing-carbon-dioxide-air https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/cost-plunges-capturi...
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  I think the idea is that the tax would dis-incentivize emissions, so the cost of capture is irrelevant.
  - ttul 8y ago
    Capture technology becomes automatically profitable if the cost to capture is less than the tax. If my business pays $100/t to emit carbon vs $90/t to capture it, I’ll emit and capture and make a $10/t profit. At $100/t, capture technology would become widespread very very quickly as an arbitrage against the carbon tax. And yes, some emitters might find a more profitable way via reduction in emissions, but since capture is equivalent to reduction, the most profitable option will win out every time. This is the magic of carbon taxes.
- ttul 8y ago
  Carbon Engineering already captures CO2 for $100/tonne. They published a paper on it https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30225-3 https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30225-3 http://carbonengineering.com/ http://carbonengineering.com/ “Individual DAC plants can be placed in any country and in multiple climates, and can be built to capture one million tons of CO2 per year. At this large scale, our technology will be able to achieve costs of $100-150 USD per ton of CO₂ captured, purified, and compressed to 150 bar.”
- ttul 8y ago
  I should add: BC’s carbon tax will reach $50/t by 2021, which is half way to viability for Carbon Engineering.